How much stuff did these 40's guys own?

[Vladimir Berkov]

Much less than people generally own now, for sure.

It was mainly class-based to a large degree, although personal preferences also factored in. An upper-middle-class man in New York would have more and better clothes than a lower-class sharecropper in Texas.

Most working-class people would have their "Sunday best" which would be worn to weddings, funerals, sunday services, and other important occassions and these clothes would not be worn everyday. Most people on the street in 1935 didn't look like Clark Gable.

That said, the number of poeple who wore "real clothes" such as jackets, shirts and ties, leather-soled shoes, etc was much larger than it is today. Even working-class men had a general sense of what was respectable, and the middle-class in particular was very keen on what was proper attire for different events.

 

[shindeco]

According to my dad (who was in his early 20s then), not much! Fabric was rationed, If you were lucky, you'd have a couple of suits and a couple of pairs of shoes; and you wore them until they wore out.

 

[Andykev]

A whole lot less...than today

My take is that men had only one good suit, maybe two. Then two pair of shoes, brown, and black. The fabric of the clothing back then was far better than today, heavier material. The mills were making cloth heavier then. People were out much more, took public transportation (few had cars, gas was rationed) and most buildings and homes did not have central air/heat.

When they made the clothing for "Road to Predition", I read somewhere that they made the costumes/clothes out of material special ordered to the specs of the time period, so that the actors would appear more realistic in their costume.

You just dont get good "new" suits today, as the fabric is much thinner and just doesn't last as long.

Art, you'd be a great resource on this one...with all the vintage stuff you've had/

 

[shamus]

here's a thought on this thread...

Most houses built before the 1920's did not have closets in the bedrooms. They had one small "coat" closet by the front door.

 

[scotrace]

And

Those homes that began to have closets (post WWI?) had very shallow ones with a few pegs.

I think people had WAY fewer clothes than we have today. Even if you take out the dressy stuff. People just didn't buy that much of anything that often.

The average Joe in 2006 has an embarassment of riches even if compared to a well-heeled 19th century man. And Mr. 1886 didn't have an iPod. Think what it would be like to invite John Jacob Astor over for dinner! He'd be amazed (and cut your pay).

I bet most of the (admiitedly clothes horsey) men on this lounge have more suits than FDR ever did at one time.

 

[Cabinetman]

here's a thought on this thread...

Most houses built before the 1920's did not have closets in the bedrooms. They had one small "coat" closet by the front door.

Good point...I can attest to this personally.

 

[jake_fink]

Yes, fewer clothes, but certainly better made than what we wear/buy today. Men's fashion ddin't really start to change from season to season - at least for the masses - until the sixties and "The Peacock Revolution". Men could then buy different fashions every few months just like women - hooray. But who throws out a suit or a shirt just because it's last season's... or last year's? The quality slipped though... built in obsolesence where clothing from earlier in the century was made to last.

And now, here we are, with our clothes for the world we live in and a seperate wardrobe altogether for the world inside our heads (you know, the one where it's always 1939). Of course those 1940s dudes owned less stuff.

:cheers1:

 

[jamespowers]

here's a thought on this thread...

Most houses built before the 1920's did not have closets in the bedrooms. They had one small "coat" closet by the front door.

There is indeed a small coat closet near the entry and space for a hall tree or hat rack.
I must be lucky though because I have closets that have an odd set up but serviceable. The closets are not deep but there are two wooden rods that run the depth of the closet and give you more space that way to put stuff in the center at the back.
Wow, two full closets for a three bedroom home. and no linen closets. I think we can safely say they had a lot less clothes and linens of any kind.

Regards to all,

J

 

[ronjohn55]

Hi all,

Being an owner of a 1919 home, I can say strictly from closet space that what people owned amounted to - not much!

We own what was considered a large home at the time, it has 3 bedrooms, each with it's own closet, but even with modern "closet keeper" setups, we don't have a ton of room for stuff.

John

 

[maintcoder]

I will agree that closet space was not much in older homes, but don't discount the fact that bureaus, chests, and armoires were probably more common storage for clothing in those days also.

 

[John in Covina]

here's a thought on this thread...

Most houses built before the 1920's did not have closets in the bedrooms. They had one small "coat" closet by the front door.

*****
Armoires!

 

[John in Covina]

Most people that made it thru the Deppression and then the rationing of the war years tend to be frugal to some extent.

Here is a telling item, if you have a party and people bring food to the party in disposable aluminum oven trays, if the mom in the house lived thru the Depression those "disposable" aluminum trays are washed and returned. Born later, they are tossed in the trash.

(I can't tell you how many times I have seen this.)

Tough times don't last, but tough people do.

 

[Mycroft]

Most people that made it thru the Deppression and then the rationing of the war years tend to be frugal to some extent.

Here is a telling item, if you have a party and people bring food to the party in disposable aluminum oven trays, if the mom in the house lived thru the Depression those "disposable" aluminum trays are washed and returned. Born later, they are tossed in the trash.

(I can't tell you how many times I have seen this.)

Tough times don't last, but tough people do.

We still keep them in my house, as well as the plastic ones. They are great for reuse.

 

[Lincsong]

Take a look at the number of electrical outlets

Go into an old home and count the number of electrical outlets. Probably two per bedroom, perhaps four in the living room. The furniture was smaller than today's because the people were smaller also. I believe the average height in the 1940's was 5'3" for men and 5' for women. Anyone 5'10" and above was considered a tall man. My grandparents house (1923) was small, 1200 square feet, but the closets in the two bedrooms are large; 50 square feet in the master bedroom and 35 square feet in the second room. Both are actual "walk-in" closets where you can walk in turn on the light and have three rows of clothes hanging in the master bedroom. Now compare that to the closets in some of today's homes where the master bedroom has a closet about 150 square feet with his and hers sides, but the other rooms have closets of about 15-21 square feet. Also, my grandparents house had a linen closet in the hallway and a pantry of about 24 square feet in the laundry room behind the kitchen. Whoever built this house must have foreseen a future where big closets would be needed.

 

[jamespowers]

Tough times don't last, but tough people do.

:drum: And we have a winner for the most poignant part of a post in this thread. :cheers1:
Boy that sure makes sense. We do not know tough times compared to our parents and grandparents that lived through the depression. I never had to put carboard inside my shoes to keep the elements out due to the hole in my soles. My mother did. I never had to choose the difference between a family pet and a meal like neighbors of my grandparents did. They knew because he came over and asked for some potatoes from my grandparents. That was quite a lesson for my mother, aunt and uncle. They never complained about what was on the table again. How many times have we instead of counting our blessing that we even have food? izza: :beer:
No, those guys in the 40s remembered what it was like to have nothing and they saved as much as they could so they would have something to fall back on. Clothes in the closet meant a whole lot less than food on the table. Here's to that generation that made do with a whole lot less. :cheers1:

Regards to all,

J

 

[chilidawgguy]

Here's an idea to ponder for those of you who live in older homes and are closet space "challenged". A friend of mine told me of someone who lined his older closets with peg board and hanged his clothes vertically.

 

[Paisley]

I never had to put carboard inside my shoes to keep the elements out due to the hole in my soles. My mother did.

So did mine, in Wyoming.

My 1910 bungalow has two bedroom closets, but I think these might be from remodeling. I've made the most of one of them, 3.5' wide, with a closet organizer that has two racks, upper and lower, for hanging the clothes, and a jewelry drawer in between. I have a set of hooks on one side of the closet for hanging belts and dresses and a shoeholder hung over the door. Out-of-season clothes are stored in the basement.

The rest of my day-to-day clothes are stored in a medium-sized dresser. In one drawer, I used corregated cardboard to make compartments for socks, scarves, etc.--makes it a lot easier to find things.

I really was not born an organized person, but on the other hand, I can't stand messy surroundings, and I don't like wasting time looking for things.

 

[Baron Kurtz]

From 'Color and Design' by Bernice Chambers:

"As the years go by, we seem to be spending a smaller proportion of our income for clothes. Between 1909 and 1929, clothing alone was never less than 12.6 per cent of all that we spent for consumer goods and services. During the 1930s the percentage went downward. Likewise, in the days before WW1 we put about 1 per cent of what we spent into jewellery, watches and luggage, but this was down to 7/8 of 1 per cent by 1941. In contrast, barber shops, beauty parlors, cosmetics, and other forms of personal care took about 1 per cent of what we spent in 1914, whereas such care was up to about 1.6 per cent of all consumer spending by the time WW2 came along.

Assuming an adequate wardrobe to start with, experts regard the following items as being just about the least amount of clothes a man can buy from time to time and still be suitably and comfortably dressed by American standards.

Winter overcoat (1 every 5 years)
Suit (1 every 2 years)
Woolen sweater or jacket (1 every 2 years)
Pants (3 every 2 years)
Dress shirts (5 every 2 years)
Work shirts (2 every year)
Overalls (2 every year)
Union suit (1 every year)
Undershirts (2 every year)
Shorts (2 every year)
Pajamas (1 every year)
Socks (12 pairs every year)
Hats (Felt or Straw) (3 every 4 years)
Cap (1 every 3 years)
Work gloves (10 pairs every year)
Dress shoes (1 pair every year)
Work shoes (1 pair every year)
Slippers (1 pair every 4 years)
Rubbers (1 pair every 3 years)
Ties (3 every year)"

I'm not quite sure what is meant by "Assuming an adequate wardrobe to start with".

Later on in the book she says:

"Wearing the same suit for 2 or 3 days is sure to spoil the best material and cut; in other words one needs two or three suits to wear them alternately; likewise shoes ... One does not need to have a lot of clothes to live up to this code; only a little care and consideration are needed, and above all, a piece of pride."

 

[jamespowers]

From 'Color and Design' by Bernice Chambers:

"As the years go by, we seem to be spending a smaller proportion of our income for clothes. Between 1909 and 1929, clothing alone was never less than 12.6 per cent of all that we spent for consumer goods and services. During the 1930s the percentage went downward. Likewise, in the days before WW1 we put about 1 per cent of what we spent into jewellery, watches and luggage, but this was down to 7/8 of 1 per cent by 1941. In contrast, barber shops, beauty parlors, cosmetics, and other forms of personal care took about 1 per cent of what we spent in 1914, whereas such care was up to about 1.6 per cent of all consumer spending by the time WW2 came along.

Assuming an adequate wardrobe to start with, experts regard the following items as being just about the least amount of clothes a man can buy from time to time and still be suitably and comfortably dressed by American standards.

Winter overcoat (1 every 5 years)
Suit (1 every 2 years)
Woolen sweater or jacket (1 every 2 years)
Pants (3 every 2 years)
Dress shirts (5 every 2 years)
Work shirts (2 every year)
Overalls (2 every year)
Union suit (1 every year)
Undershirts (2 every year)
Shorts (2 every year)
Pajamas (1 every year)
Socks (12 pairs every year)
Hats (Felt or Straw) (3 every 4 years)
Cap (1 every 3 years)
Work gloves (10 pairs every year)
Dress shoes (1 pair every year)
Work shoes (1 pair every year)
Slippers (1 pair every 4 years)
Rubbers (1 pair every 3 years)
Ties (3 every year)"

I'm not quite sure what is meant by "Assuming an adequate wardrobe to start with".

Later on in the book she says:

"Wearing the same suit for 2 or 3 days is sure to spoil the best material and cut; in other words one needs two or three suits to wear them alternately; likewise shoes ... One does not need to have a lot of clothes to live up to this code; only a little care and consideration are needed, and above all, a piece of pride."

The person who wrote this must have been either a great optomist or a fellow with a great gift for stating the obvious.
First the depression hit. Next you have the war come up with all of its rationing. Then taxes were raised on luxury items such as watches and dress clothing to support the war effort. I think it can be reasonably assumed that the experts were right. The correlary would be that of today. I bet few men today 35 or younger own anything on that list of American standards aside from slippers that they wear as shoes, caps that they wear backwards and well, rubbers......they have a completely different meaning today. The funny thing is that they probably own more of those items than our grandparents. :kick:

Regards to all,

J

 

[Lincsong]